![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org> wrote: > > Yes. In kernel "damage control" is an optional extra not a necessity > > with this solution. Not so sure about with the RT LSB solution though. > > This has one advantage over RT LSM in that area, which is it places an > upper bound on the priority (in control of the admin). So it's > possible to save some space for damage control in the top few prio > slots. it's not just purely for damage control - there have been requests of being able to 'partition' the RT priorities space between applications. (It's an afterthought but nice nevertheless.) Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:10 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||